English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This article is concerned with pointing out and believing that the Criminal Procedure Code of 2004, considering the judgment stage as a main phase of the criminal proceedings under the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy, contradiction and procedural equality, among others, would demonstrate a clearly established delimitation of functions, both for the procedural parties, as well as for the impartial third party, forming a triadic scenario in the judgment. Therefore, beyond the observation, control and direction of the oral judgment, it would be counterproductive to accept some judicial intervention in the probative activity as also prescribed in the said adjective code.  The objectives of the study are to identify which procedural and structural principles that govern the oral trial are violated with the powers of intervention of the judge of judgment within the framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2004; analyze the concept and attributions of being the impa

La actividad probatoria y el tercero imparcial en el modelo acusatorio contradictorio del Código procesal penal (Dec. Leg. n.° 957)